- 6 -
of the Commissioner’s intended collection action, and possible
alternative means of collection. Section 6330(c)(2)(B) provides
that the existence of the amount of the underlying tax liability
can be contested at an Appeals Office hearing if the taxpayer did
not receive a notice of deficiency or did not otherwise have an
earlier opportunity to dispute such tax liability. Sego v.
Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 609 (2000); Goza v. Commissioner, 114
T.C. 176, 180-181 (2000). Section 6330(d) provides for judicial
review of the administrative determination in the Tax Court or a
United States District Court.
Respondent asserts that there is no dispute as to a material
fact and that respondent is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law because section 6330(c)(2)(B) bars petitioners from
challenging the existence or amount of their tax liability for
1996 and 1997 in this proceeding. Respondent also asserts that
petitioners have not raised a valid issue for review; i.e., a
spousal defense, a challenge to the appropriateness of the
collection action, or an alternative means of collection.
The record shows that respondent issued a notice of
deficiency to petitioners for 1996 and 1997. The record also
shows that although petitioners received the notice of
deficiency, they did not file a petition for redetermination with
the Court to dispute the proposed deficiencies. Under such
circumstances, section 6330(c)(2)(B) plainly states that
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011